The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision, finding that
the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by repudiating an agreement
between the parties. The Respondent (DODDS) filed exceptions to the Judge's
decision and the General Counsel filed an opposition to the exceptions.

Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and the entire record, we
adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order.

II. Judge's Decision

The facts and other relevant matters are fully set forth in the
attached Judge's decision, and are only briefly summarized here.

The Union and Patricia Rivera, the Respondent's Chief of
Management-Employee Relations, DODDS-Germany, executed a settlement agreement
resolving a grievance. Subsequently, Mervin Scott, the Respondent's Director of
Personnel, Headquarters, stated to the Director of DODDS-Germany and the Union
that the settlement agreement "could not be recognized" because, according to
Scott, the settlement agreement was in conflict with the parties' national
collective bargaining agreement. General Counsel's Exhibit 4.

The Judge found that, because the Respondent did not take action in
accordance with section 7114(c) of the Statute to disapprove the settlement
agreement within 30 days of its execution, the agreement became binding on the
Respondent. Based on Rivera's credited testimony, the Judge rejected the
Respondent's assertion that Rivera was not authorized to enter into the
agreement. The Judge found that: (1) the agreement, which was binding on
the Respondent, applied to DODDS-Germany; (2) the Respondent had stated to
both DODDS-Germany and the Union that the agreement could not be recognized;
and (3) the Respondent had taken no subsequent action to countermand that
statement. Based on those findings, the Judge concluded, "under all the
circumstances[,] that [the] Respondent repudiated the agreement" and, thus,
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute, as alleged. Judge's
Decision at 8.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. Respondent

The Respondent excepts to the Judge's decision on three grounds. First,
the Respondent excepts to the Judge's finding that the settlement agreement,
which applied only to DODDS-Germany, constituted a national-level agreement.
According to the Respondent, the agreement was at the regional level and, as
such, it is necessary to determine whether the settlement conflicts with the
parties' collective bargaining agreement. Second, the Respondent excepts to the
Judge's finding that Rivera was authorized to enter into the settlement
agreement. Finally, the Respondent excepts to the Judge's finding that Scott's
statement to DODDS-Germany and the Union that the Respondent "could not
recognize" the agreement constituted a repudiation of the settlement agreement.
Judge's Decision at 8.

B. General Counsel

The General Counsel asserts that the Respondent's exceptions raise
nothing that was not considered by the Judge, and are no more than a
disagreement with the Judge's crediting of Rivera's testimony and the findings
he made based on her testimony.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

We find no merit in the Respondent's first exception. The record
supports the Judge's findings that the settlement agreement was executed to
resolve a grievance, filed at the national level, as it applied to
DODDS-Germany.(1)

The Respondent's second exception constitutes disagreement with the
Judge's crediting of Rivera's testimony, on which he based his finding that
Rivera was authorized to enter into the settlement agreement. The demeanor of
witnesses is an important factor in resolving issues of credibility and only
the Judge has had the benefit of observing the witnesses while they testified.
We will not overrule a judge's credibility determination unless a clear
preponderance of all relevant evidence demonstrates that the determination was
incorrect. SeeRedstone Arsenal Exchange Service, Army and Air Force
Exchange Service, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 50 FLRA 51 (1994), and cases
cited therein. We have examined the record and find no basis for reversing the
Judge's credibility findings.

Finally, we agree with the Judge that the Respondent repudiated the
settlement agreement. The Judge found that: (1) Rivera was authorized to
enter into the agreement; (2) the agreement was binding on the Respondent
and applied to DODDS-Germany; (3) the Respondent stated to both
DODDS-Germany and the Union that the agreement could not be recognized; and
(4) the Respondent had taken no subsequent action to countermand that
statement. Based on those findings, the Judge concluded that the Respondent
repudiated the settlement agreement. We find that the Judge's conclusion is
consistent with the approach for determining repudiation set forth in
Department of Defense, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins Air Force
Base, Georgia, 40 FLRA 1211 (1991) (Warner Robins).(2) The Judge's findings establish
that the Respondent clearly indicated its refusal to honor, in their entirety,
the unambiguous terms of the settlement agreement by which it was bound.
Accordingly, by its nature and scope, the Respondent's refusal to honor the
agreement constituted repudiation and, as such, violated section 7116(a)(1) and
(5) of the Statute.

V. Order

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the
Department of Defense Dependents Schools shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Failing and refusing to honor the June 19, 1991 agreement
concerning teacher identification cards, in resolution of grievance 90-14,
applying to its Germany Region, which was reached with the Overseas Education
Association, the exclusive representative of certain of its employees.

(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:

(a) Implement the June 19, 1991 agreement and ensure that all affected
unit employees have corrected identification cards.

(b) Rescind its November 26, 1991 letter to the Overseas Education
Association concerning the invalidity of the June 19, 1991 agreement.

(c) Post at its facilities in the Germany Region copies of the attached
Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon
receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Director, and shall be
posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure
that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify the Regional Director of the Washington Region, Federal
Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply.

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE

FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
STATUTE

WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to honor the June 19, 1991 agreement
concerning teacher identification cards, in resolution of grievance 90-14,
applying to our Germany Region, which was reached with the Overseas Education
Association, the exclusive representative of certain of our employees.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

WE WILL implement the June 19, 1991 agreement and ensure that all
affected unit employees have corrected identification cards.

WE WILL rescind our November 26, 1991 letter to the Overseas Education
Association concerning the invalidity of the June 19, 1991 agreement.

______________________________

(Activity)

Date: _____________ By: ______________________________

(Signature)
(Title)

This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of
posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

1. In view of our determination, we
need not address the Respondent's arguments that are premised on a conclusion
that the settlement agreement was not at the national level.

2. In Warner Robins, the
Authority stated that "the nature and scope of the failure or refusal to honor
an agreement must be considered, in the circumstances of each case, in order to
determine whether the Statute has been violated." 40